About Me

Name: Patrick Henry
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

OBAMA AND THE VALUES ISSUE

 
 
   How many people packed into that Denver stadium or watching at home on TV got past the
 
suave rhetoric and actually heard what Barack Obama said when he formally accepted the
 
Democratic nomination for president? I imagine it was about as many as can quote you the
 
lyrics to a 200 decibel rock group's song ten minutes after the concert. But the devil is in
 
the details, and Americans had better pay attention.
 
   Most chilling was Obama's confession that he was going to change America's traditional
 
values, and his companion worry that the Republicans would make the campaign about
 
"small things." So, Obama thinks traditional American values are small things, eh? And
 
I'm sure that he's still convinced that those who hold onto them are sitting around their
 
small towns being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion, too.
 
   Make no mistake, America. That was a leftist declaration of war on the only things
 
that matter to many of us: our values and our faith. When one considers the emergent
 
positions of the Democratic party, it makes perfect sense. Ban God from public places
 
and expressions, including schools and courthouses, delete Christian symbolism of
 
every form (but not Muslim or Jewish), create a massive state supported grist mill
 
for the murder of unborn infants, deprive average citizens of any means of self-defense,
 
place the civil liberties of terrorists above the safety of law-abiding Americans, take
 
American tax dollars and give them to a corrupt and ineffectual United Nations, build
 
a universal healthcare bureaucracy that will allow people to die while awaiting needed
 
medical attention, steal from those who have earned and give to those who have not,
 
reward, not stop, illegal immigration and legalize the personal use of marijuana. Those
 
are the values of the Democratic party AND OBAMA HAS NOW ANNOUNCED HIS
 
INTENT TO ENACT AND ENFORCE THEM AS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
 
   Is this what you want? Is it what you believe America wants and needs? Have we become
 
so desperate and hopeless as a nation that we will elect a man who spouts hope but
 
demonstrates zero qualifications to deliver on his promises? Have we learned nothing
 
at all from our failed past forays into the socialist quagmire? The impossibly high
 
taxes, the sputtering, economic standstill, the decay of the nation's capacity to defend
 
itself?
 
   And have we forgotten the lesson of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter? Nixon was,
 
his public protestations notwithstanding, a crook who used the powers of the nation's
 
highest office to perpetrate and cover up illegal acts. He, too, mired us hopelessly in
 
an unpopular war we could not win. And so America punished the Republican party
 
of Nixon/Ford by electing a Georgia peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter to succeed
 
them in office. Carter was a Christian, a man of peace, a decent man and everything
 
that Richard Nixon was not. He was also one of the weakest and worst presidents in
 
modern history. He was bullied by Iran, a "tiny country that can't hurt us" while he
 
sat by wringing his hands before reluctantly authorizing a rescue attempt by an
 
underfunded military that ended in disaster and humiliation. Runaway inflation and
 
unemployment spiraled out of control. After only four years in office, Carter was
 
unelected by a landslide. Remember?
 
   And now many Americans are in love with Barack Obama who is Jimmy Carter on
 
steroids. The Democratic party has been working and planning for 40 years to convert
 
America into a socialist state, suppressing religion, Karl Marx' "opiate of the people,"
 
in the process. Democratic vice-presidential nominee conceded in a recent interview
 
that many in his party "look down their noses at religious people."  At least he was
 
honest about it. But now, the Democrats sense that their 40 years of wandering in
 
the wilderness is over, and they have a new and charismatic point man to drive their
 
agenda into policy and law. That man's name is Barack Obama!
 
   The Democrats celebrated the nomination of John McCain, a white man of means with a 
 
beautiful and wealthy wife whom they could paint as "out of touch" with the common
 
man and link with the current unpopular president. What they weren't counting on was
 
his choosing a small-town counilwoman, turned mayor, turned reformer, turned
 
governor as a running mate; someone who is more in touch with small-town America
 
than Obama or his Ivy League cronies will ever be, and someone who actually worked
 
with her hands and sprang from modest means and all those values that Obama now calls
 
"small things."
 
   America is like a big, well-oiled machine. But when little parts are chipped away,
 
marginalized or removed, the machine comes to a grinding standstill. Maybe it's time
 
we made this campaign about some of the "small things." Barack Obama has told us
 
exactly where he stands on traditional American values. But where do you stand?
 
Where do American voters stand? Are we gullible enough not to see that Obama's
 
message of hope is nothing more than wishful thinking? Do we really want to jump
 
with this untested, unproven parachute and HOPE it opens? Are we really ready to
 
sell our values down the river for his socialist "mess of pottage?" I think not! I hope
 
not! We'll find out on November 4. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DOWN FROM THE MOUNTAIN -- WAY DOWN

 
 
   Now that the hordes of adoring pilgrims have descended the slopes of lofty Olympus,
 
awash in the gospel according to Barack, maybe life in the valley can make a u-turn toward
 
the theatre of the real. Actually, I don't know which was campier, the corny fake Greek
 
temple ruins or the serial groupy rock performances that resembled some kind of acid
 
induced Woodstock redux.
 
   But once the haze from Denver began to clear, it didn't take the Democrats' fangs long
 
to come out. Less than an hour after McCain unveiled Sarah Palin as his running mate,
 
Bill Burton of the Obama campaign dissed her as "the mayor of a town of 9,000 with
 
zero foreign policy experience." Although Obama and Joe Biden later backed away from
 
their sycophant's venom as a "hair trigger" response, the tone of the left wing campaign
 
to discredit Sarah Palin, and by implication John McCain, had been set. Within hours the 
 
DailyKos was accusing her of "faking" her pregnancy to cover up the fact that her youngest
 
son was, in fact, the illegitimate child of her daughter, and Allan Colmes was questioning
 
on his blog whether she had taken improper pre-natal care. (That, of course, reflects what
 
a moron Colmes is about all things medical -- including prenatal care). The point is clear:
 
the Democrats will do or say ANYTHING -- no matter how low or vile -- to discredit

Sarah Palin,
precisely because she threatens to rain on their parade. 
 
   You see, her entry into the race presents the Democrats with a highly unfavorable

comparison
that they can't very effectively dodge without making their own candidate look

bad. Neither
Barack Obama nor Joe Biden have ever governed anything. Sarah Palin has

governed a whole
state. Barack Obama has never negotiated the first issue with a foreign

power, while
Palin has worked with Canada repeatedly on issues ranging from drilling and

commerce to
wildlife conservation and mutual use of coastal waterways. Obama has never

faced down
corrupt government officials and curbed government waste. But she has! He

talks about
change, but she has actually made it happen. They say she's too young. How old is

he? If
the inexperience label sticks to her, it sticks even more to Obama. The Democrats want
 
to have their cake and eat it too, as usual.
 
   Their upper tier of bloggers -- people like Lanny Davis and Susan Estrich -- are already
 
shaking their fingers at Republicans for trying to draw in Hillary supporters by nominating
 
a woman, saying it will never work because Sarah's not Hillary. You're darn right she's
 
not Hillary! Hillary's already lost and gone home, and Sarah's just getting started. Such
 
arguments as these are not only insulting to Palin and McCain, as they were intended to
 
be. They insult the intelligence of all women. But that's the real kicker, isn't it? The Dems'
 
slavish worship of Roe v. Wade makes them bulletproof to sexism charges, or so they think.
 
But where were Howard Dean and the Democratic party when the biased media was
 
launching sexist missiles at Hillary and the Obama machine was mercilessly attacking
 
her? How ironic that both presidential candidates had the option of putting a strong woman
 
on the ticket, but only the Republican did. Adding Hillary to his ticket would likely have
 
guaranteed Obama's election, but she hadn't "kept her place," and so he never even vetted
 
her for VP or talked with her about it. Now which party has the sexists?
 
   The unvarnished truth is this: the Democrats have chosen an overstated underqualified
 
nominee for the highest office in the land. Their only strategy for victory is to chant their
 
holy mantra that McCain is Bush, and to launch criticisms against Palin which, since
 
truth cuts both ways, apply more to their presidential candidate than they do to Palin
 
who, after all, isn't running for the same office. Get ready for some reality therapy
 
Obama supporters. Your king has no clothes, and sometime between now and November
 
4, the majority of voters are likely to see him in the buff.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY I WILL VOTE AGAINST OBAMA

   I only have one vote in the 2008 presidential election (since I don't live in Alabama
 
or Ohio). And after a great deal of reading about and listening to Barack Obama I have
 
decided that I absolutely cannot give that one vote to him. Let me explain why.
 
   (1) I won't do it because I refuse to be one of the media driven sheep. It is quite clear
 
that Chris Matthews, MSNBC, the New York Times and their ilk have already chosen
 
Obama to be president, and are doing everything possible to influence Americans to
 
vote for him. Obama's record and actual agenda are the most unexamined in media
 
history. They don't report news anymore, they tout an agenda. And any real news that
 
seems detrimental to the Obama campaign these charlatans bury deep in the classifieds
 
or omit it altogether. That is rank dishonesty. The one thing I have left in this media frenzy is my
 
own right to examine the evidence and vote as I think best. I will simply not allow these
 
pontificating circus clowns to deprive me of that.
 
   (2) I won't do it because, after much study, I believe the Obama campaign is mathematically
 
challenged. The numbers simply don't add up. What Obama plans to siphon from the wealthy
 
and from corporations will simply not pay for all the things he proposes to do. That's a
 
fact supported by a number of major financial publications and researchers. So that means
 
he will be unable to keep all of his promises (on which he campaigns to be elected), or
 
he'll have to get the revenue somewhere else. Anybody want to guess where he'll find it?
 
Hello, middle class. The fact is that the Democrats always talk taxing the wealthy. There's
 
nothing new in that. But they always end up taxing everybody. That's a fact. Look at
 
the effective tax rates in the Obama plan, and you'll see that the giveaways increase
 
income to a degree that makes tax breaks for the poor and middle classes largely without
 
meaning. Even the Wall Street Journal can't make any sense of this gibberish!
 
   (3) I can't vote for Obama because he doesn't seem to realize just how dangerous this
 
world is, and has zero experience in handling national security or international crises.
 
Russia is on the move again, and who knows where that will lead? And Iran is NOT a
 
tiny country that can't harm Americans. How big does a country with a nuclear weapon
 
have to be to be dangerous? North Korea is, as usual, waffling on their nuke reduction
 
pledge, and Chavez is building a formidable military in Venezuela. Teddy Roosevelt
 
said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." It seems Obama is ready to lose the stick.
 
Frankly, that scares me. Fred Thompson wrote that in a world where traffic is speeding
 
up and dangeous, that's no time to give the car keys to a kid. And the bottom line is that Obama
 
is just a kid when it comes to security and international affairs.
 
   (4) Obama can't have my vote because he can't seem to take a position and hold onto it.
 
He tells a group in Oregon that Iran is a tiny country that can't hurt us, and then a Jewish
 
group that Iran is the single biggest threat to Israel and to international security. Which is
 
it? He claims that America is in terrible shape, and that it's impossible for many Americans
 
to realize its dreams. At the same time, he and his surrogates are detailing how Obama
 
and his wife rose from humble circumstances to aspire to the highest office in the land.
 
The argument seems to be that they could do it, but others can't -- at least not without
 
government assistance. Isn't that trying to have it both ways? First he's against domestic
 
drilling, then, after the polls show Americans disagree, suddenly maybe drilling is okay
 
after all? The man's a chameleon. Whatever happened to the new politics?
 
   (5) However much I try to retionalize it, I just can't vote for a guy who fancies himself
 
some kind of modern day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich in order to help the poor.
 
Now let me qualify this by saying that I am in no way among the rich who may feel the
 
bite of Obama's taxation promises. So, that's off the table. But how do you think rich
 
people got that way? A few of them inherited money, or won the lottery, sure. But most
 
of them worked their butts off, built a better mousetrap or translated vision into
 
opportunity to become wealthy. If we're now going to take that away from them, what's
 
the incentive to innovate, create, over achieve and prosper. And if we're then going to
 
hand this confiscated wealth over to those who don't work, didn't stay in school or
 
learn a trade and expect government to hand them life on a platter, where's the
 
fundamental fairness in that? I root for the disadvantaged just as much as the next guy.
 
But what I want is for them to work for theirs the way I worked for mine, and the
 
way Bill Gates worked for his. If they don't, then what do they really have?
 
   (6) Finally, I can't vote for Barack Obama because I just want to vomit when I think
 
of his position (and his record) on partial birth abortion. Now I know that Obama's
 
surrogates are saying almost daily that those who say he killed legislation that would have
 
protected live born babies who were targets of abortion are lying. And then they seek to
 
defend his actions by saying he was only trying to protect Roe v. Wade. But the
 
documented record is very clear. On this issue Obama is absolutely guilty as charged.
 
I've seen the evidence with my own eyes. And I just can't condone having a man sit
 
in the Oval Office who is okay with letting live norn babies just die because their
 
mother doesn't want them. Doggone it, that's just plain wrong. And if this man has
 
that kind of a moral blind spot, what else can't he see because of liberal dogma?
 
And if that's how he sees things, what kind of judges do you suppose he'll appoint
 
to the supreme court? NO! I can't vote for that.
 
   It's too bad, because I admire Obama's charisma, his oratorical ability, his personal
 
charm and his commitment to hope. I don't question his patriotism, although sometimes
 
I think he has an odd way of showing it. I don't understand why he chose to consort with
 
the likes of Tonmy Rezko, Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers so itimately, or why he
 
relied on a Muslim with a virulent hatred toward Jews and Christians for a letter of
 
recommendation to get into Harvard. But when he renounces such folks and their
 
actions publicly, I tend to want to cut him some slack on that. It's high time we had
 
a black man, or a woman, or a Hispanic as president. I wish Obama was the one. But
 
he isn't, and if he's elected he will do it without my one vote.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DIFFERENT DREAMS

   Like many older Americans I grew up watching my parents pursue the American dream. Get a job,
 
work had, own a home, buy a car, put bread on the table and put a little aside for a rainy day. As
 
an adult, I followed in their footsteps. It never really occurred to me to do it any other way. To
 
me and the people I went to school with, that WAS the American dream. Over the years, as the
 
warring political parties have drifted farther apart ideologically, it has become apparent to me
 
that there are at least two separate American dreams -- maybe more.
 
   Conservatives envision a country in which everyone gets what he earns, produces and saves
 
-- no less, and no more. They cherish a government that provides for the national defense and
 
security, enforces the law and looks after the infrastructure -- not more. In the name of that
 
vision they pay their taxes and celebrate their country. Polls have repeatedly shown that the
 
majority of Americans hold to conservative values, whatever their party affiliation.
   
   Liberals, on the other hand, follow what seems to be a different dream. Driven by a strong
 
social conscience, they are pained to see some living in affluence while others abide in
 
poverty. Their simple solution is to tax the wealthy and multiply government giveaways
 
for the poor. Enamored with Marxist socialism, they long for a classless society that
 
would reward the non-working at the same level as the working, the unsuccessful the same
 
as the succesful. Since they have long been in the minority, they seem to take great joy in
 
bemonaing America's weaknesses, and hypersensitive about world opinion. They tend to
 
court minorities whom, they believe, will resonate to their message of social and fiscal
 
equality, and tout big government bureaucracy as a means to achieve their ends. As a group
 
they tend to be less religious, more pacifist and more disdainful of any outward show of
 
patriotism. There dream of what America should be and what its citizens should strive
 
for is a very different one indeed.
 
   As I reflected on this great divide, and the politics to which it has brought us, I could
 
not help but think that so much of the polemical rhetoric is out of touch with reality.
 
If the wise and courageous men who authored the Declaration of Independence believed
 
that "all men are created equal," they must have also noticed that after being created people
 
don't stay equal for very long. As they grow and develop some are bright, and others less so.
 
Some are fast, strong, athletically gifted, where others are not. Some are born into poverty
 
and achieve success through courage and hard work, while others are born into wealth and
 
squander it. And some choose to stay right where they are. The whole system tends to be
 
based more on the differences than the similarities between us. The grading system in the
 
schools allows the better students to excel over the poorer ones, leading to easier college
 
admission and earlier entry inti professional life. The credit system tends to rank people
 
according to debts and assets, assigning them greater or lesser credit worthiness. We revel in
 
our beauty pageants, and all that's left to those not deemed beautiful is to look on in envy
 
and think about "what if."
 
   If there is such a thing as true equality in this world, it's  an equality of human dignity that
 
proudly says, "Here I am with what I have. Give me a chance, and I'll be the best that I
 
can be. And that's good enough!"   Government, whether large or small, can never really
 
give us that kind of equality. It's up to everyone to seize it by the throat and own it, whatever
 
his color, creed or religion. Any political philosophy that tries to re-stack the deck and give
 
what one man has earned to another creates only a faux reality, and really cheats people
 
out of the nobility of struggle. It's the old business abut the difference between giving
 
people fish, and teaching them how to fish.
 
   There is a young African-American man in Houston, Texas, who is trying to help other
 
African-American men to understand this. His name is Warrick Baker, and I am proud to
 
call him my friend. He works out of a little backroom charity with male students who are
 
failing in the school system, and near expulsion. Going into a local high school, he takes
 
the worst of the worst and tries to make successful students and productive citizens of
 
them. He organizes each class along the lines of a corporation, utilizing the strengths and
 
gifts of each member. He promises them that if they, as a class, will achieve at least a B
 
average in school, he will help them to form a profit making business in which they can
 
produce their own music CD -- write the music and lyrics, give and direct the performance,
 
work with the studio (with which he has established a partnership in advance), design the
 
cover, oversee the production, design and carry out the marketing and divide or re-invest
 
the profits. The young people love every minute of it, their grades go straight up and they
 
spend less time on the streets. Furthermore, they learn valuable lessons about how to develop
 
a skill, interview for a job, negotiate a deal and take responsibility. These are clearly lessons
 
they weren't leraning at home -- OR at the school.
 
   One evening when Warrick and I were talking, he poured out his heart about what he saw
 
happening to young black men. They grow up playing sports, and idolizing sports figures
 
like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and Reggie Bush. And the tragedy is that they all think
 
they're going to be professional athletes. Warrick, who was a star sprinter at Louisiana
 
State University, tells about how, upon graduation, he showed up at the NFL
 
combine, the stage where those not drafted into the league showed off their wares to coaches
 
and agents. He said, "I was pretty cocky, and real fast. I was sure I'd be a wide receiver in the
 
NFL in no time. Except when I got to the combine I found out there were a whole lot of
 
other guys who were just as fast as me -- except they were four or five inches taller and
 
thirty pounds heavier." That dream ended as do the dreams of thousands of others at some
 
point between their school days and the real world. The point, according to Warrick, is
 
that their whole lives have been built around playing -- football, basketball, baseball --
 
and when they find out they can't "play" for a living, they become depressed and end up
 
just dropping out of life, many ending up in penitentiaries.
 
   He also pointed out that these same kids have no concept of responsibility. They are
 
allowed to slide on their good looks, charming personalities and athletic popularity. So
 
they take no responsibility for their own actions -- criminal, sexual, familial, academic --
 
the works. His program is designed to help these kids see the mathematical improbability
 
of achieving a livelihood through professional sport, and the total necessity of assuming
 
responsibility as a means to success in the world as early as possible. I said Warrick is my
 
friend. I guess the truth is that he's my hero. It's a shame Warrick only gets to work with
 
a few black male underachievers every year. I can think of a lot of young women, not to
 
speak of white, hispanic and Asian-American kids who need the same kind of reality
 
therapy.
 
   The surest road to equality does not lie in the mythical classless society or government
 
giveaway programs. It lies in achieving the vision and the courage to seize the chances
 
we are given and create our personal versions of the American dream. The politicians
 
can never create that. But each individual American can. Most everyone has abilities
 
as well as disadvantages. It's not about how far down we were, or how high up we climbed.
 
It's about each of us being proud to be us, and carving out a reality that we can live
 
with. Meeting someone like Warrick Baker along the way helps a whole lot. Maybe
 
government should look into funding him. Now that's something just about everyone
 
could get behind.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DEMOCRATS HAVE NO SHAME

      The left wing of the Democratic party is getting a bum rap. Often referred to as intellectuals,
 
academics and elitists, they turn out to be none of the above. What they are is a cadre of power
 
hungry socialists who increasingly have lost any moral grounding whatsoever and are the 
 
biggest public hypocrites in American history.
 
   Our word "hypocrite" is derived from the Greek "hupocritos," which refers to one who
 
plays a part for gain. An actor, if you will, who readily portrays fantasy as realityy for money or
 
other considerations. It is a shoe that perfectly fits the likes of Barack Obama, John Kerry,
 
Al Gore, Chuck Schumer and their ilk. They are by no means intellectuals, because true
 
intellectuals are sticklers for consistency and logic, neither of which trouble these leftist
 
dilettantes. Real intellectuals also respect those who hold opposing points of view and are open
 
to truth, no matter where it leads or by whom it is spoken. When is the last time you heard any
 
one of the aforementioned concede that a conservative -- any conservative -- had made
 
a good point. It must be an incredibly exalted feeling to have such a corner on the truth.
 
   Consider, then, some of the logic of the left. They claim that the surge didn't work on the
 
one hand, but that the situation has improved in Iraq to the extent that American troops can be
 
safely withdrawn. They claim that any criticism of Barack Obama, or the recently indicted
 
William Jefferson constitute gross racism, whereas the most scathing attacks on Clarence
 
Thomas and Condoleeza Rice do not. They are outraged that John McCain couldn't remember,
 
on the spur of the moment, how many properties he and his wife own, but indignantly defend
 
their candidate for the presidency when he can't remember how many states there are,
 
or exactly how he voted on a key abortion bill in the Illinois legislature. You see how it
 
goes, don't you? There is one standard of truth for them (a very low one) and another for those
 
with the temerity to disagree (impossibly higher, because it would be heresy to ever concede that
 
what an opponent said was true or right). There are dozens upon dozens of similar instances of
 
Democratic doublethink, but what is most frightening is the corruption that flows from such
 
quantum dishonesty.
 
   Let's illustrate from just two current cases in point. There is legislation, already approved
 
by the House of Representatives and voted for by EVERY Democrat, that changes labor
 
rules in a major way and greatly advantages the labor unions over business. It denies
 
employees the right to a secret ballot over whether to immunize and relieves the National
 
Labor Relations Board from monitoring the elections. If it passes the Senate, union
 
organizers will be able to approach every employee to sign a card saying they favor
 
unionization, even without hearing the drawbacks of such action. Democrats claim
 
such a law is necessary to keep businesses from intimidating employees who wish to
 
join a union. They ignore the consistent record of the unions that is replete with
 
coercion, violence, corruption and ties to organized crime. In a companion move, the
 
Democrats are seeking to slash millions from the branch of government responsible for
 
investigating union corruption. All of this in noble defense of the poor, downtrodden
 
American worker?
 
   Now, let's be real! In the last electoral cycle the Democrats gained majorities in both the
 
House and the Senate. They did it on public opposition to an unpopular war and Cadillac
 
campaigns that were flush with cash. Would you care to guess where that cash came from?
 
If you said it came from the Labor Unions you would be 100% correct. The current bill and
 
the de-funding of union investigations is the payola for Nancy Pelosi's speakership. The
 
unvarnished truth is that union membership has declined in the last 30 years from a high
 
of around 19% of the work force, to its current dismal 7.4%. And this has occurred
 
because the unions have poured more and more of their attention and their members' money
 
into power politics and less and less into looking out for the employees, which is what
 
they're supposed to do. But Democrats excel at calling things everything but what they really
 
are. In this case the "Employee Freedom Act" is defended with flowery rhetoric so specious
 
as to be laughable, instead of a forthright admission that they're paying the union off
 
for its campaign largesse. These modern sophists have become quintessential purveyors of sleaze
 
while average Americans sit helplessly by and get hosed.
 
   Another case in point is the Democrats' new attempt to reinstate the "fairness doctrine."
 
Targeting conservative talk radio and television stations, they mean to be certain that noone
 
can criticize them without affording them equal air time to respond. They bleat in
 
self-righteous indignation that they are endeavouring to protect the public trust
 
bestowed on these broadcasters.
 
   Reality check, again. The Dems are getting pounded daily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh,
 
Mike Medved and others, and they want to make it so costly for them to continue their
 
criticisms that they'll shut up. In other words, they're coming through the back door to inhibit
 
a cardinal first amendment right. Again, look at the contradiction. It's okay for the likes of
 
MoveOn.org and the Daily Kos to slander conservatives daily, but it's a violation of the
 
public trust for Rush Limbaugh to hand it back in kind. Of course, this legislation doesn't
 
cover websites, by a mysterious coincidence.But isn't the internet a part of the "public
 
trust?" The tired logic of, "It's okay for us to do it, but not for you," has become a staple of
 
illogic for the left.
 
   If they wish to sit in a corner and contemplate their navels with such intellectual claptrap, more
 
power to them. But when they employ it to justify legislation like the two bills mentioned
 
here, that is immoral and hopelessly corrupt. And when they use it to justify the frightening
 
record of their presidential candidate, as they are now doing on a daily basis, they threaten
 
a future awash in their sleaze. Have you guessed by now that I won't be voting
 
Democrat in the presidential election? I hope Americans are smart enough that in
 
2012 they won;t have to say, "Well, I voted for him before I voted against him."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SYTEM IS BROKEN -- CONCLUSION

   Elected officials are no longer responsive to the voters. Three-quarters of Americans want immediate domestic drilling to lessen dependence on foreign oil. But the Democratic Speaket of the House of Representatives has blocked even so much as a legislative vote on the matter. More than 85% of Americans oppose legislation depriving employees of a secret ballot on whether to unionize. But the Majority Leader of the Senate announced plans to try to ram such a bill through as early as this week. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is their rhetoric. Once in power, they turn a deaf ear to Americans and do as they please, paying off political debts and playing partisan politics. More and more Americans are saying "ENOUGH."
 
   So what can we do about it? Just voting the current crop of crooks out of office won't do it, because their parties will just nominate others like them and nothing will change except the names on the door plates in Washington. The whole system has to be fixed, and it's a daunting job. Following is a laundry list of necessary steps.
 
   (1) The two-party system has to go. When you have a bad coin, flipping it does no good. The difference is that the nominating and electoral processes along with the debate format (and who may participate) are controlled by the  parties, thus automatically marginalizing independents or so-called "minority parties." To break through this political monopoly will require several very
special things. The first of these is money. The most successful independent campaign in American political history was that of billionaire Ross Perot. But it will take more money than Perot has. A conglomerate might be formed consisting of the likes of Rupert Murdoch. T.
Boone Pickens, Michael Bloomberg and several others to bankroll the revolution effectively.
   Next, a charismatic candidate with good, fresh ideas and few residual ties to the two existing parties will have to be identified, recruited and groomed. But even such a person, once elected president, could not force the needed change. Strong, baggage-free independent legislative candidates will have to be identified in every state and district, and their campaigns orchestrated and bankrolled. Their appeal will be that they don't run on any party's platform. Instead, they build a platform based on extensive community surveying and the expressed will of the voters they agree to represent. That does not mean that these candidates will get evrything they want, once in office. But it does mean that they can fight for what their constituents want without carrying the cross of some party's platform or the responsibility to pay back political favors to faceless monoliths like big labor, big oil or the environmentalists. Someone once said, "In the final analysis, Americans are their own leaders." The Democrats and Republicans have made that statement false. Isn't it about time to make it true again?
   It may take several election cycles to put enough such people in the congress to make a dent in the monopolies, but even a few who are free to align on any issue as they believe their constituents would want, will inject some restraint into the current power brokers who will be unable to pass legislation without their consent. When enough of a foothold has been gained, the parties will have to compromise in order to put together a coalition or voting bloc.
Over time, the parties will either lose public
support or become much more responsive
to their electorate. Either outcome is fine. But only a strong, thougthtful, well-financed centrist coalition can force the desired change.
   (2) Legislators must be forced to become district focused, rather than Washington focused. There is no excuse for legislators not to spend at least as much time in their own districts as they do in D.C. What occupies their time there is the partisan bickering and parliamentary manipulation that stalls many bills -- both good and bad -- from coming promptly up for a vote. Republicans and Democrats will never make such a change on their own. But once they see popular independents doing it, they'll have no choice. Think what it would be like if candidates were constantly doing telephone surveys, town hall meetings and e-mail input solicitations
instead of investigating the opposition or endorsing other party members. The only ones who can demand this are the voters.
   (3) The Washington lobby must be curbed once and for all. It has been argued that if individual voters can have access to legislators, so can corporations. It's a first amendment right, free speech. Fine, except I can't write my congressman's party a ten million dollar check, and the AFL-CIO can (and does). That's hardly a level playing field. The only way to exorcise this insidious corruption is to forbid, by law, all gifts, gratuties or favors to legislators AND their parties, including meals, travel and lodging. Those who violate such statutes should then be prosecuted under existing Racketeering and Corrupt Influence statutes. (Both the payer and the payee). If such a system were in place today, half the members of both houses would be in prison (what a great idea) and both parties would be bankrupt (even better).
 (4) Farcical self-investigations of the House and Senate should be forbidden. These are basically exercises in covering the backsides of the party in power, and attacking the minority. They do not follow proper law enforcement procedure and are both morally blind and bankrupt. Upon presentation of a complaint by any member of congress, the person and/or party
at issue should be fully investigated by the Department of Justice, which has the proper tools to do it correctly.
   (5) An independent office of ethics in government should be estblished with a broad charter to root out corruption in all three branches of government. Such an entity should be non-partisan, and might even be appended to the Supreme Court, the one branch which lacks investigative authority. Creation of an office with near-Draconian powers of subpoena and investigation would deter many a legislator from patronizing illegal houses of prostitution, soliciting or accepting bribes or favors, exercising coercion and abuse of power or climbing into bed with powerful lobbies or political action groups. And the penalty for one deemed guilty of such should not be censure, but immediate removal from office.
   If these seem radical to you, you're probably not as concerned as I am about what's been going on in D.C. for many years now. It is weakening our government, undermining or national resolve, bankrupting our treasury and leaving us wide open to foreign attack of one kind or another. There are a number of progressive organizations out there moving in this direction. One of these I would nighly recommend is American Solutions. To learn more you can check out their website. But it's time for us to do something, and be our own leaders once again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE BIG FAIRY TALE

      It has taken nearly thirty years to find something that Bill Clinton and I agree on. But miracles

 do happen. During the Democratic primary campaign, Bill said that Obama's contrived superiority
 
over Hillary vis-a-vis the Iraq war was a fairy tale. His comments generated a furor from those
 
who understood him to mean that Obama's entire campaign was a fairy tale, and even earned him the
 
label of "racist" in some quarters. This was odd, because there seems to be no connection between
 
one's race and the veracity of their campaign message. Those critics were dead wrong about what
 
the ex-president meant. But if they had been right, I'd have agreed with him even more.
 
   Barack Obama and his so-called "change we can believe in" are nothing more than vacuous
 
media-generated holographs. They have appearance without substance. They are "sound and fury
 
signifying nothing." THAT is why his handlers are so diligent to keep him out of arenas where
 
his immaturity shows, where his elitist prattlings and his woeful lack of credentials and experience
 
can be clearly exposed. The Forum at Saddleback was a major embarassment to the Obama
 
campaign precisely because they couldn't write the script, with the result that their man
 
fumblingly revealed his moral bankruptcy, political shallowness and disingenuous rhetoric
 
for what they are -- disqualifiers for his presidential bid.
 
   Today, the candidate came storming back, laying down the gauntlet for his opponent. "I do not
 
intend to lose this election," he crowed. "John McCain does not know who he's up against." This,
 
in lockstep with his surrogates' announcing the intent to attack McCain viciously in the upcoming
 
convention did even more to illuminate Obama's truth deficit.
 
   What happened to Obama's high-sounding promises to run a new kind of campaign? Did he cross
 
his fingers behind him saying slyly to himself, "I'll run a clean campaign UNLESS, of course, my
 
opponent attacks me first?" By announcing in advance his intent to revert to the "old politics," by
 
renouncing public campaign funding when he promised to accept it, and by waffling on domestic
 
drilling because the polls showed three-quarters of the voters disagreed with him, Obama has
 
told us all we need to know about his commitment to truth. It IS a fairy tale!
 
   So is his pretense to piety. He has proven particularly sensitive to claims by "right to life"
 
organizations that he deep-sixed a law that would have forbidden denying aborted babies
 
who were born alive assistance to live. This allegedly happened while he was in Illinois
 
prior to his time in the U.S. Senate. "Methinks he protests too much" in his denial, so I went to the
 
trouble of locating the bill to see what all the fuss was about. In it's final form, the bill
 
incorporated all the langage of a companion federal bill to insure that it did not violate
 
Roe v. Wade, while still protecting the right to life of any child born alive. The bill failed to get out
 
of the committee Obama chaired by a 4-6 vote, with Obama voting against it.
 
   After first denying that this had ever happened, the Obamanators finally, grudgingly
 
admitted that it did. But, they argued, he voted against it because he was concerned that
 
its interaction with other existing state laws would have the result of violating Roe v. Wade.
 
So I did a little more research. I looked at every Illinois stte law having anyting to do with
 
childbirth, abortion, child welfare, parental rights and every other remotely related topic
 
and must confess that I could find no bill with which the one Obama helped kill could
 
ever imaginably have "interacted" to threaten Roe v. Wade. And since Roe v. Wade is currently
 
the law of the land, such a law would have been overturned by the high courts anyway. Cut
 
through his deceptive philosophic musings about abortion at the Camelback forum, and
 
Obama's argument seems to be that, "I don't want to kill any babies, but I want to support
 
the rights of others to do so." His noble ethical and moral pronouncements are a fairy tale!
 
   So are his faux claims to character and readiness to lead the world's most powerful nation.
 
When asked, at Saddleback, to describe the existence of evil, he first pointed to the genocide
 
in Darfur, and then quickly to the streets of American cities, suggesting that in the quest
 
to eradicate evil even worse evil is often perpetrated. He also allowed that victory over evil is up
 
to God, and all we can do is be "soldiers." Let's see how that plays out? Clearly he doesn't see
 
locking live born babies who were targets of unsuccessful abortions in a closet where they're
 
abandoned to die. As a soldier against evil he could be tried for desertion in that one. But when
 
Russia's Vladimir Putin, speaking of those who are truly evil, invaded tiny neighboring
 
Georgia with a war of genocide and infrastructure destruction, Obama's strategy for
 
confronting evil was, "let's sit down and talk about it." Try that one out on the men who
 
invaded Normandy, or those who fought on Pork Chop Hill, or maybe some who lost
 
good firends during the Tet offensive. This candidate couldn't identify evil with both
 
hands and a flashlight, and he clearly lacks the moral certitude or courage to confront it if he
 
did. The notion that Barack Obama is in any way ready to lead America is a fairy tale!
 
      And so his only hope of fooling enough of the people enough of the time is to hang
 
George W. Bush around John McCain's neck, and make it stick. This has already been
 
announced as his campaign's next strategic move (and one in which the biased media
 
will no doubt prove a ready ally). But it's just another lie! I once agreed with Jimmy
 
Carter on something. I don't remember what it was, and I'm embarassed to admit it.
 
But that didn't make ME Jimmy Carter, or a liberal, or even a Democrat. Yet Obama
 
and his horde of deceptors will now argue that because McCain shares the president's
 
conservative outlook on the war and the economy he is just "George W. Bush, Jr." Of
 
course he will ignore the fact that on a number of notable occasions, McCain went
 
against his party and its most powerful leader, that McCain was part of the Senate's
 
bi-partisan coalition that saved the filibuster and that hes been dubbed "maverick"
 
in his own party. They'll ignore it because they want to deceive, and the inconvenient
 
truth has no place in their tissue of lies. And THIS is the new politics that "we can
 
believe in?" No, thanks!
 
   But my hat's off to you, Bill Clinton. You finally nailed one! But I'll bet you dinner
 
that you won't say it again when you speak at the convention. Prove me wrong, and I
 
imagine John McCain's campaign could use a good volunteer.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SYSTEM IS BR'OKEN -- PART II

   "Conservative" and "liberal" are meaningful terms in discussions of political philosophy only.
 
They are essentially without content in American politics today and are used as poster slogans
 
to vilify and demonize political opponents or to glamourize the candidates or parties we like.
 
   Conservatives still like to stake out a pro-life, strong national defense, anti-illegal
 
immigration, small government, low taxation platform, while liberals still tend to champion
 
big government, pro-choice, open borders, higher taxes and reduced military spending. That's
 
true. The problem is that although they champion these things, they practice them only selectively.
 
Since politicians are elected to office largely on the basis of the promises they make, what causes
 
so many of them to wander off into power struggles, wastefulness and scandal?
 
   The answer lies in the way they are elected and deployed. Elections have become largely
 
about money. Candidates agonize over how to fund campaigns costing hundreds of millions of
 
dollars. Some opt to live with public campaign financing while others, convinced that
 
they can raise more from private sources, eschew the limited public dole for spicy internet
 
solicitations, celebrity endorsements and the money tree proffered by political action groups
 
(PACs). This is true because campaigns are about how many television ads a candidate can buy,
 
how many staff he/she can put on the ground and how man electoral battlegrounds can be
 
visited by themselves or their surrogates in the time available. All of this has nothing to do
 
with liberalism or conservatism. It is the politics of the dollar, and whoever raises and spends the
 
most, often wins.
   
   But politics is also about power.  People run for office not simply for the common good, but
 
because they are convinced that they are "righter" about some things than their opponents, and
 
they crave the power to make the changes they deem best for the nation, state, county or city.
 
Once in office, the quest for power receives a quantum boost as candidates vie to create a
 
veto proof majority, to win a seat or a chairmanship on this committee or that, or to become
 
a power broker within their party. This is made less complicated by the fact that there is only
 
one other party, whose members all obviously wear the black hats. There is simply no
 
incentive for true bi-partisanship, so why make the effort. The current legislative impasse
 
over energy is a case in point. One party wants to find a long-term fix by drilling for
 
oil domestically, while the other wants to avoid a vote on drilling to pacify their environmentalist
 
base. They're not even both trying to solve the same problem. One party has the issue (and most
 
likely the votes) to move forward, but the other holds the key chairmanships and control of protocol
 
to make sure the issue never somes to a vote. The question is, are we being served? The
 
answer is obviously not.
 
   Finally, politics is supposed to be about leadership. Sadly, we discover increasingly that
 
politics is about lust and greed. Consider, the Republicans have, in recent memory, given us
 
Ted Stevens, Tom DeLay, Larry Craig, "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney -- not to speak
 
of Richard Nixon. Not to be outdone, the Democrats trot out William Jefferson, James Traficant,
 
Bill Clinton and John Edwards indicted,  disgraced or discredited for illicit sex, lying, bribery,
 
racketeering, influence peddling, abuse of power and more.  One can argue that this is all the
 
result of the money/power factor, but what if it is an illness brought on by prolonged
 
exposure to a fatally flawed system, the way one becomes drowsy and nauseous from a slow gas
 
leak?
 
   American government is like the Edsel. No matter how hard we try, we can never really
 
"fix" it in its present form because as things stand, there is no effective way to control the
 
money, channel the power constructively or weed out the avarice. It is too easy for the
 
electorate, when confronted with gross malfeasance in office, broken promises and defiant
 
self-interest to just hold its collective nose and flip a coin, even when heads stinks just as badly
 
as tails. No! The current system must be shaken to its core by the creation of additional options
 
that will render politicians either accountable or out. Power and money must be made more
 
difficult to come by, and avarice exposed and appropriately punished. You argue, "God
 
Himself couldn't do that." I beg to differ. He could, but so can we!
 
                                                                  __________________
 
                                                Want to know how? See the next post here.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN--PART I

   Who is more conservative or liberal, Bill Clinton or George Bush? Stop and think about it before
 
giving a knee-jerk answer. Consider the fact that Bush, who ran as a conservative, presided over
 
an unparalleled expansion of government and will have left the country with its largest deficit
 
in history due to out-of-control spending. Conversely Clinton, who ran on his party's liberal
 
platform dramatically expanded application of the death penalty and left office with the first
 
national budget surplus since the 60's.
 
   It used to be that conservatives believed in small government, frugal spending and strict
 
protection of American national sovereignty. Now, on performance, they appear to favor
 
big bureaucracy,  mortgaging the nation's future through unbridled spending and open
 
borders that violate Ronald Reagan's dictum that "a country without borders is not a
 
country." So the question is this: in practice, what is the difference between the liberals and the
 
conservatives, the Republicans and the Democrats?
 
   Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and sponsor of the recent
 
presidential forum at Saddleback takes the position that increasingly the American
 
majority is centrist, identifying with neither the extreme left or the extreme right. When
 
both parties are in the control of their extremists, this mass of middle-of-the-road Americans
 
is stranded, having to hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. An increasingly
 
cynical electorate is beginning to understand that the two parties are now less divided by
 
ideology, and instead are differentiated by the corporate and special interests who sponsor them
 
and whom they serve.
 
   In 2007 a poll done by The Wall Street Journal revealed that 47% of Americans believe
 
that the two party system is deeply flawed, and another 27% think the system is just plain
 
broken. Conservative and liberal are no longer practical agendas, but rhetorical frames used
 
by the respective parties to manipulate the public, polarize the electorate and gain power.
 
So when the Democrats, true to their platform, raise taxes, encourage unchecked illegal
 
immigration and proliferate boondoggle federal giveaways, and then the Republicans do
 
the very same things, where is the difference? America does not have a true two party system
 
anymore. It has a two agenda system, and more and more the agendas differ less and less.
 
   Why is this so? It is because of the pervasive and thoroughgoing corruption of the
 
political process by money, special interests and the raw lust for power. So, whereas
 
we used to identify the players by their uniforms, today the uniform they're wearing is
 
beside the point because they all want the same thing and are out to get it in the same
 
ways.
 
   America has faced a similar dilemma before in the arena of commerce when, in certain industries
 
(e.g., telecom) one or two large companies cornered the entire market and precluded mean-
 
ingful competition. Finally, anti-trust laws are invoked to break up these monopolies and
 
force a return of competition to the marketplace. When we have become totally fed up
 
with Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee (Republicans and Democrats) simply taking turns
 
ignoring what Americans want and feathering their own nests, we will finally apply the
 
same principle and disenfranchise those who have, for years, disenfranchised us. Now
 
that's a REAL American revolution. And it may be more than just a pipe dream.
 
                                       -----------------------------------------
 
                                          To learn more, watch for Parts II and III.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GOP BLEW IT -- AGAIN!

   Normally this blog tends to be harsh on the addle-brained Defecrats who currently control both houses of the United States Congress and now threaten to add the presidency to their trophy case. So let's take a break and beat up the Republicans for awhile. They RICHLY deserve it.
   It hasn't been so long since the GOP was in the same enviable position -- full control of the legislative and executive branches and a self-defined mandate to work their will on the country. The Republican party ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism, strong national security and pro-life family values. The problem with what happened is that the performance didn't live up to the promises, the rhetoric exceeded the reality and, as a friend of mine in Texas used to say, "their mouths overloaded their butts."
   Oh, they gave us pro-life okay. But they spent like a bunch of drunken sailors, leaving us the biggest federal deficit in history, pork barreled to a degree that would make a Defecrat blush, blundered into a war without an intelligible exit strategy and handed America Tom DeLay, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, Jack Abramoff, etc., ad nauseum. And as a bonus, they blindly supported a president who absolutely refuses to take strict measures to shut down the nation's southern borders, thus rendering any pretense of national security a joke. If they lose the upcoming elections, it will be because they have earned it. (Unfortunately, the rest of us poor dumb Americans haven't, and while the retiring GOPers write their books and earn big bucks on the lecture circuit, the rest of us will be taxed into oblivion by their socialist opposition and Barack Obama).
   So whatever happened to the Republican party I used to love? In three words, incompetence, arrogance and greed. The incompetence was never clearer than our disastrous, ill-planned adventure in Iraq. The misplaced debate has raged around whether there were or weren't weapons of mass destruction, whether getting rid of Saddam was worth 4,000 American lives, whether western style democracy is even a possibility in the Middle East and whether we did or didn't commit enough troops. These are not issues that should be debated in retrospect, but bridges that should have been meticulously crossed before the first bombs fell. Did anyone bother to study the historic interaction between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds, and the likelihood of their being able to come together without the cursory bloodshed that seems to afflict Middle Eastern countries generally? Did anyone ask what would happen if, after vanquishing the Iraqi army, our troops were confronted by a strong, well-armed and organized sectarian resistance? Did anyone consider that Al Qaeda might not sit idly by without getting involved? Did anyone think about suicide bombers, Iranian I.E.D.'s or inflammatory clerics who would continue to oppose our presence long after the war itself was done? If they did, then their thinking was stinking! Saddam now rots in hell, a good place for him, but what else do we have to show but  a shaky government which is now demanding that we get out and leave it to them so they can get on with annhilating the minorities, billions in debt that xould well have been used to close the deal in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the resentment of most of the civilized world.
   Bear in mind, however, that the incompetence was political, not military. Our kids in uniform gave all that was asked of them, and a great deal more. For the most part, they performed brilliantly. They didn't deserve Rumsfeld's folly or the congressional debate about whether to buy them more ammo for this particular appropriations period or that. While the administration seems to respect General David Petraeus, they ought to be kissing his feet. It was he who gave them a semblance of victory with which to notch their belts. They certainly did nothing to help.
   Arrogance has also played a part in the Republican collapse. George W. Bush has a big blind spot where Mexico is concerned. There is no plainer way to say it. He has sat aloof in his office while Americans suffer the massive and multiform burdens of illegal immigration, tried to increase the number of legal immigrants allowed to work here and dragged his feet on implementing congressionally funded enforcement measures designed to secure the borders. The sheer hubris of putting his personal preferences above the wishes and the welfare of Americans will contribute to a presidential legacy that is likely to be one of shame. Parents who name their sons George, will almost certainly not be giving them a middle initial of W -- for a long time.
   But greed has also played a part. Majority control was not enough, and so we had the DeLay power plays, at both federal and state levels, the political cleansing of the U.S. attorneys  presided over by Alberto Gonzales, the Abramoff payola scandals and very nearly the "nuclear option" to destroy the Senate filibuster privilege -- something the Republcans are going to be very glad they have for at least the next four years. The GOP reign has been an unmitigated disaster, except for the fact that in Alito and Roberts we got a couple of Supremes who can actually read the constitution.
   But the most damning accusation of all is that because of all these malfeasances, the Republicans have set us up for taxation without real representation, the weakening of our military, the continued compromise of our borders and a national security policy so namby-pamby as to virtually guarantee another 9/11 -- or worse. Here come the Democraps and Barack Obama!
   So what does that leave us? It leaves us one party of presumptuous, incompenet bunglers (the GOP) and a party of crooked, corrupt, deceitful political schemers (the Democrats). If you're having trouble getting your mind around it, just visualize Tom DeLay and Howard Dean. IT'S TIME FOR A REVOLUTION, brothers and sisters. If not now, when?
 
                                                   Watch this Blog for My Alternative.
Tags: GOP Folly  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE DEMOCRATS' BIG ENERGY LIE

   With Americans fuming at the gas pump and overwhelmingly in favor of expanded oil drilling, the Democratic party has, yet again, resorted to a string of ruses, misdirections and outright lies to define the problem, the culprits and the solution to the energy crisis. This makes even more disappointing the indications that the Democrats will increase their majorities in both houses of the legislature in the coming elections, and makes one wonder where the voters' heads are.
   Since the presidency of Bill Clinton, it has become standard operating procedure for the Democrats to orchestrate their policy pronouncements on the basis of the polls. Their pronouncements, but not their actions -- words, but seldom deeds. Running true to form, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who was adamantly opposed to new drilling and threatened to block even a vote on such in the lower chamber, now, suddenly, has come to Jesus and decided that drilling is on the table. But Americans beware! Two things are true about Ms. Pelosi's astounding change of heart. One, it's based completely on the fact that the polls say Americans overwhelmingly support new drilling, not to cause an immediate and dramatic drop in prices at the pump, but to spare us from another such crisis ten years down the road and break, once and for all, our top-heavy dependency on foreign oil. The Dems are running for office again, and it is their policy never to run on an unpopular issue. But two, and equally important, House Democrats, led by the nefarious Ms. Pelosi, are sure to attach so many onerous strings to any bill that includes new exploration as to force Republicans to vote against it. Mark my words. It WILL happen!
   Democratic strategists have hitched their political wagon to what they think is a shooting star -- the vilification of big oil as the prime culprit in the energy price surge. With oil companies reporting record profits, they make fat and easy targets for poltical cheap shots, and their well paid CEO's can fairly easily be broad-brushed as neo-Mafia eco-fascists. It is, after all, the oil companies who have failed to develop the leases they already have who are responsible for the fact that America is not producing more of its own oil, we are told.
   But the shooting star suddenly becomes a falling star and then a supernova when one takes the time to analyze why these leases sit uncultivated. It is because of the eco-lobby, with whom the Dems are involved in a perpetually incestuous union. The oil companies, for some strange reason, want to drill where there is actually oil, because sinking dry holes is costly, boring and unprofitable. And it just so happens that in vistually every case where drilling would be promising, there is also some species of animal, plant or bird that MIGHT be endangered -- or so the ecofreaks tell us. And so the environmentalists, using the labyrinthine Environmental Protection Agency's volumes of demands for cost-prohibitive studies, reams of permission forms and company assurances, always manage to delay any actual exploration. And when that fails, they simply file a lawsuit and tie the project up in court -- often for years. And all this time, they funnel constant streams of cash to the DNC and individual Dem politicians to assure that (a) they will continue to oppose domestic drilling and the construction of additional refineries, (b) they will oppose the nomination of judges who might be unfriendly to environmental causes, and (c) they will protect and proliferate the rules, regulations and red tape that must be cut through before oil production actually occurs.
   What makes it so tough for the oil companies is that they are put in the impossible position of having to prove a negative -- that something which has not happened won't. Whether it's the black-footed ferret in Colorado, or some fish in a stream in Michigan, the very thought that drilling MIGHT, by some far out chance cause a negative change in the eco-system is enough to send the envirowackos into frenetic action. For example, when 78 parcels in new Mexico were approved for lease, the enviromaniacs challenged not one or two, but all 78. So, why should the oil companies bother with domestic drilling? Just getting a bit in the hole takes many times longer and costs much more just because of the inevitable challenges that invariably arise.
   After misdirecting the American public by demonizing big oil, the Dems ultimately return to their blather about new energy sources -- which none of them can ever name or explain how to make work. So the result will be that domestic drilling will occur slowly or not at all, ten years from now we'll still be seeking those elusive clean, efficient, renewable energy sources, Saudi Arabia will still be laughing all the way to the bank and next time we'll be paying $10 a gallon at the pump instead of $4.
   The only question is one of how long Americans will continue to be duped by a political party whose root corruption is defined by its unholy alliance with special (environmental) interests, and whose moral character is based on an ongoing attempt to lie to voters -- saying whatever they think voters want to hear, and then doing whatever they believe to be in their own best interests. Shame on the Democratic party. And shame on those sheep who continue to vote for them.
 
                                          On the next post I'll be after the GOP!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

COME OUT, COME OUT WHOEVER YOU ARE, BARACK!

   Barack Obama's campaign for president may be one of the best managed of all time. This is undeniably true because his campaign staff -- Plouffe, Burton, Vietor, et al -- have set out to have their man elected with the public knowing less actual information about who he really is than any president-elect in history.
   They have done a masterful job of manipulating the public venues in which Obama is seen. Plenty of exposure to liberal media who fawn over him and pelt him with softball questions any moron could answer intelligently, but no appearances on O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or anywhere else where his feet might be held to the fire. Lots of big crowd speeches like the one in Germany, where he can play the triumphant rock star, but no face to face debates with his opponent where his lightweight policy grasp, limited experience and staggering naivete can really be exposed. And if, even with such protection, Obama does step in it, like he did when he fretted that his opponent would point out that presidents on American currency didn't look like him, they immediately step in claiming that he didn't actually mean what any fool could see he meant.
   The net result is that in spite of the populist ground swell of young voters and liberal sycophants trumpeting, "Yes We Can," we know next to nothing about this candidate's actual faith, value and belief systems. We hear his high sounding platitudes about race relations in this country, but nothing about what HE would do to improve them. We hear his drum beat to get out of Iraq, but only waffling when we ask how, or under what circumstances an orderly wihdrawal that leaves some semblance of a viable government in place will occur. We hear immediate condemnation of his opponent's strong stand against Russia's immoral, ruthless, punitive attack on Georgia, but not a peep on exactly what he would do if he sat in the White House today.
   It is highly doubtful that Barack Obama is running his own campaign, and while he jiggles at the behest of his puppet masters and continues this ridiculous game of hide-and-seek, the American electorate is being urged to embark upon an enonrmous crap shoot. Certainly, we can evaluate his rather meager political and voting records, and see that he has been consistently in lockstep with the far left of the Democratic party, implying that he is essentially a one-world socialist. We can see his courtship with Europe and the Palestinians, and infer that his foreign policy will hinge not on what's right or wrong, but what others will think of us. We can evaluate his friends, Jeremiah Wright, Wlliam Ayers and now, George Clooney, and make a decision about how we'd feel about those folks having an entre to the Oval Office. But the leftist media won't press him on those matters and he won't talk to anyone else, so how would we really know?
   But the question has been begged. WHY? Why won't he come out and answer hard questions in plain English? Why do his spinmeisters continue to ply the internet for money and support while doing everything in their power to keep voters from knowing anything substantive about him? The answer is painfully simple. They know that if American voters saw the real Obama -- the weakness, the inexperience, the liberal socialism, the globalist vision -- that it would be all over for him -- and for them.
   They're counting on the American electorate to behave like a bunch of ga-ga teenagers at a rock concert and swarm the polls on election day to give them a mandate. Yet in spite of the Obama hype machine, the race remains close. Maybe we're not all as dumb as they think. And maybe it's time Americans stood tall and shouted, "Hey, Barack. come out, come out, whoever you are!"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Electoral Politics And the Culture Of Duplicity

   Remember Dick Nixon's famous line? "I am not a crook!" Or perhaps Bill Clinton's? "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Or lately John Edwards? "I did not have an affair." All of them turned out to be blatant, self-serving lies, designed to deceive the American people whose support these men craved.
   Disturbingly, these are not isolated instances confined to these disgraced former leaders, but rather part of the pattern of purposeful duplicity that seems to have irretrievably infected American politics. During the Clinton presidency he gathered around him a small group of aides who became known collectively as the "spinmeisters" -- people who could, with a straight face, argue to the American public that night was actually day, that black was actually white and that just plain bad was, at worst, neutral. Governing according to the polls, it was necessary for him to create at least the illusion that his priorities were the same as those who elected him. And even when he was caught in his falsehoods, neither he nor those around him would admit flatly that he had lied. Instead, they sought to spin it that he had simply "misled" the grand jury.
   But fast forward to 2008, when Barack Obama promised that "they," clearly referencing the campaign of John McCain, would try to scare voters by saying that he (Obama) had a funny name, or didn't look like the former presidents who had their likenesses on American currency. The latter comment quite clearly referenced the fact that none of those president's was African-American, thereby making the backhanded assertion that McCain either had or would run a racist campaign. This, of course, is completely unsupported by the facts. But perhaps we need to take a deeper look at the aftermath of the brouhaha. When McCain's campaign rightly accused Obama of "playing the race card" -- casting McCain as the evil racist -- Obama's talking heads vehemently denied the claim, speaking to every media outlet that would listen (and that's most of them where Obama's concerned) and claiming that Obama was not talking about race at all, but rather about the fact that he wasn't a Washington insider. Mike Baker, in an opinion piece that appeared on Fox News this week, labeled that claim "a load of crap," and he was right on point. At best we could cite their duplicitous disclaimer as a disingenuous "the dog ate my homework" bunch of malarkey. But let's reduce it to the lowest common denominator. They lied flat out to the voters in order to cover for their candidate's sad misjudgment. But why lie? Why couldn't Obama have just come back and said, "I wasn't talking about John McCain, but I'm concerned that others on the right may try to make a racial campaign out of this? Instead he supported the lie, covering for the coverers. Do they really think the voting public is that stupid. Are they really self-deceived enough to believe that because the liberal media embraced their explanation, the general public doesn't know exactly what Obama was referencing?
   Lately, Democratic House members seeking re-election have done a good deal of hand-wringing because 73% of the American public favors immediate domestic drilling while the Democratic party, deeply in bed with the environmental lobby and "the Goreacle," is absolutely opposed to it. These folks know that you don't win elections by telling your constituents that they're all wet. So Nancy Pelosi made a back room deal with them, that has since leaked out. She urged them to go home and support drilling when they were campaigning, promising them that they had nothing to fear because she would never allow drilling to come to a vote in the House of Representatives. In other words here we have the highest ranking woman in the legislature, a person who would succeed to the presidency should the president and vice-president die or be removed, encouraging her Democratic troops to blatantly LIE to the people who elected them. This verges on moving beyond politically expedient duplicity to the brink of organized crime.
   Hillary Clinton on the primary campaign trail stated not once, but repeatedly, that she had landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Eyewitnesses quickly branded that claim as bogus, leading her to hedge that she misspoke." Of course, dear. No one would ever believe that you had embellished the story just to make yourself look heroic. We're all sure you didn't mean to "mislead" us. Right! Purposeful, politically motivated duplicity.
   And John Edwards sought the presidency of the United States while vehemently denying, until this very week, a sexual affair with campaign aide Rielle Hunter. Until this week when he tearfully admitted that such an affair did, in fact, take place. I guess that's something like, "I voted for it because I voted against it." Lies, lies and more lies.
   The point is this: politicians have lied from time immemorial in order to get or maintain their power. When found out, they have routinely tried to cover with even more lies. Are these really the people we want governing us, representing our values, modeling leadership for our young people and making decisions that affect our health, prosperity, security and well-being? If not, it's high time to do something about it. It's time for Americans to say with a loud and unanimous voice, "ENOUGH LIES!"
   In Tom Clancy's book "Executive Order" there is a scenario in which terrorists, by an act of mass destruction, have wiped out the entire legislature in a single day. Jack Ryan, the acting president, goes before the American people and begs them not to send him career politicians but farmers, teachers, merchants, businessmen and other people who can bring fresh, practical pragmatic and leadership to a stunned nation. Let me make it clear that I suggest no act of terrorism. What I do support is a ballot box revolution, term limits and a cabinet level ethics in government office to prosecute and remove from office elected officials caught in documented lies to this nation. Let's clean house. It's high time. NO MORE LIES!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Obama and the Democrats Are Wrong About America

   Barack Obama and his Democratic cronies are dead wrong about what's right for America. Ignoring history, common sense and present reality, they pine for an Alice-In-Wonderland society controlled by an all-seeing, beneficent bureaucracy and marching stalwartly forward toward the creation of Camelot. In other words, they're dreaming. And the problem is that their dream is America's worst nightmare.   
   The left wing of the Democratic party is now firmly in control, and their core ideology, socialism, is clearly driving their agenda. Central to the socialist vision is the re-distribution of wealth. In simple terms that means taking money from people who earned it, and giving it to those who did not in order to create economic equality. Obama learned the dictum by studying at the feet of Alinsky, Marshall, et al. Now he proposes to raise taxes on the very rich in order to elevate the very poor, and contends that this will actually alleviate the tax burden of the middle class. Either he hasn't done the math, or he hopes to heaven  the voters won't. You see, there are simply a whole lot more of the very poor than there are of the very rich. So, when you run out of very rich people to bleed, where are you going to get the money to keep these overblown promises to the poor. Let's guess! Obviously, you will start slowly sucking additional taxes from the middle class and upper middle class until finally the ideal of socialism, a classless society, is achieved.
   Now, if you're in an exceedingly giddy mood about all this (and you're not rich), you may say what's the harm? Maybe a level playing field isn't a bad idea. But ask yourself this: if I can get the same rewards without sweating through an education, without working my tail off, without overcoming life's hard hurdles, then why knock myself out? If government policy makes getting even automatic and getting ahead impossible, then why try? The answer, according to socialism, is that you're no longer working for your own good, but for the common good.
   The lunacy of socialism is that it has learned nothing from history and ignores human nature, two awfully  big shortcomings. Let's start with the human nature part. Most healthy people want to better themselves -- to think more clearly, to act on better information, to be more healthy, to excel at what they do and yes, to earn more so they can have more. Right or wrong that's how most of us are. And to say we should trade in that value for a selfless commitment to having much less and contributing to the "common good," is like believing in the tooth fairy. Whole societies won't voluntarily do that, particularly when a majority of their citizens believe that people should be accountable for their own actions, get what they work for and earn and have ultimate control over their own lives and property.
   So how do the socialists get the power to impose their vision on a nation. They find a compelling personality or a charismatic leader who can rhetorically make that society feel guilty about the affluence of some in the face of the poverty of others. They seize power, either through the ballot box or other means, and they begin gradually to control resources through exhorbitant taxation as well as the nation's means of production. Sound familiar? Perhaps like National Socialism (Nazis) in pre-WW II Germany, or Communism (the extension of socialism practiced in the Cold War Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) or Maoist Communism in China. Eventually they restrict free speech and a free press (note how Obama supporters move instantly and reflexively to brand any criticism whatsoever as racist or a character attack). When people have had enough, and civil protest is followed by revolution, then socialism has come full circle to fascism and dissent is muzzled by military force. History teaches us that nations embracing socialism to that extreme ultimately collapse into anarchy and economic ruin (see Nazi Germany and the USSR).
   But wait a minute, you say. There are examples of benign socialist states like Sweden and Canada where there is no such repression. No argument. But what are those nations contributing to world leadership, to the economic redemption of the Third World or to the global hunger disaster? What brilliant technologies are they evolving to fight environmental decline, conquer the reaches of space, cure cancer? What leadership are they exercising at the United Nations to bring about world peace and stability? With few exceptions, the correct asnwers are few, slim and none. Why? Because the socialist mind set has robbed them of the drive and the means to excel on the world stage. What happened to the renowned German scientists who were held in virtual captivity to stoke the Nazi war engine? As soon as the war was over they fled the country, seeking places where they could profit from their excellence, in the USA and elsewhere in the free world. And if you grant the Soviet nuclear arsenal and Sputnik, what else has Russia produced of significance to the world? The lessons of history are harsh, but those who ignore them are like hamsters on a teadmill, doomed to an unending repetition.
   During Hillary Clinton's first term as a U.S. senator whe was asked by a reporter from one of the national networks why she favored increasing taxes on Americans instead of letting them manage their own money. Her telling answer was "because we think we know how to do it better." The "we," of course, referred to her and her Democratic colleagues. But the statement stands out as a classic landmark in the Dems relentless push towards a tightly controlled socialist state, and nicely frames the load of elitist horse hockey that both she and Obama are pitching. The best example is their touted universal healthcare program, controlled and administered by the government. The argument seems to be one of why should people who can afford the best in healthcare be allowed to access it when some have no healthcare at all? And the remedy? We'll seize control of healthcare to insure that the doctors, hospitals and insurance companies don't make any money (government commandeering the means of production), and we'll tax the heck out of other big earners to pay the difference.
   Are you tired of paying those big insurance premiums or fiddling with claims reiumbursement. Man, has Barack Obama got a deal for you. It's near universal healthcare, bought and paid for by taxes on the few very rich to benefit all the very poor. (Yeah, and if you believe that I have some Arizona swampland I'd love to show you). Not only will we all end up paying through the nose for this socialist boondoggle, if you thnk it's going to actually make healthcare better look at those socialized medicine heavens of Canada and Sweden where you can wait six weeks or longer to even see a doctor, or die from a condition that could have been successfully treated had you received attention in a timely fashion. Is that what American voters really want?
And if it becomes impossible to amass wealth through the practice of medicine, why would our brightest and best set out to endure the rigors of med school, internship and residency? To simply serve the "common good?" I think not! Government is no good at running business -- any business. And healthcare under Obama will very soon go the way of the post office.
   But, you argue, the Republicans have screwed things up. Upon that we are in total agreement. Half-cocked embarkation on a war with no exit strategy, pork barrel spending that would embarrass even the Democrats, the biggest budget deficit in American history, one corruption scandal after another, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Throw the bums out, right? But exercise caution, please. There's a story in the Bible attributed to Jesus, about a man whose house was inhabited by demons. In the end, the demons were routed out, but nothing good was put in their place. The result was that the demons all returned and brought their friends. The moral, abstracted to politics? Look at your local legislator's voting record. Is he or she a tax-and-spend socialist by record, or running on Obama's platform? Is he or she capable of independent thought and action, or just a party line robot who votes the party ideology come hell or high water? Is the person you're thinking about voting for more likely to see his or her principal accountability to you, the voter, or to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama? Once you've asked and answered those questions definitively, you'll know who to vote for, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent.
   The bottom line here is that Obama and the Dems are completely wrong. In the end Americans will never sit still for what they're shoveling. But if we elect him, we'll be smelling it for at least four years.
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
Tags: Obama Wrong  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive